First, you seem to be trying to start a debate and I have no interest in turning this into a debate. Second, my opinion doesn't matter. What matters is truth and that is what we should be seeking.
All I will offer is this...
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,
John 1:14 ESV
And this...
Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Philippians 2:5-8 ESV
I also found this...
Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Hebrews 2:17 NKJV
I was curious to learn what you truly believe, having read this: ‘I personally do not support that Mary was the mother of God. God always existed and has no mother. I believe she was the mother of the incarnate - Jesus.’ (Post 3).
My first question (Post 5) established that you believe Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) to be wholly man and wholly God; having two natures and one divine Person.
My second question (which you have declined to answer) was an attempt to establish when – in your opinion – this union of his two natures took place; at his conception, or after his birth.
Had you replied ‘at his conception’ then you would have been in total agreement with the CC when she teaches that, from the very moment of this conception, Mary bore the whole of Yeshua – his Divine Person; his Divine Nature; and his human nature.
This is why the Council of Ephesus declare her to be ‘Theotókos’ (translated ‘God bearer’; or ‘The one who gave birth to God’).
It has been pointed out that the Council used this expression to counter the heresy of Nestorianism; namely:
‘That Christ was conceived and born exactly as other men, but that, at some undefined period of His Life, the Word of God became united with Him by a moral union, like that by which God is united to the souls of all the just, only far closer than is ordinary.’ (Sylvester Joseph Hunter: ‘Outlines of Dogmatic Theology’).
The term ‘Theotókos’ is intended to confirm the dogma of the Incarnation. Mary is the ‘God-bearer’, carrying within her womb that divine Person who was both ‘wholly God’ and ‘wholly man’; as opposed to being just a man.
She who bears a child is rightly called the mother of that child. Why should Mary be the exception?
If Yeshua was truly a divine Person – truly God – then Mary was the Mother of God.
My purpose is not to debate, it is to confront a notion in serious need of correction. As you say, what matters is truth, and it is that we should be seeking.
It is a simple truth that the CC does not teach – and has never taught – that the expression ‘Mother of God’ shall be taken to imply that Mary is the source of the Divine Nature of Yeshua (of the Second Person of the Trinity).
It is a simple truth that the CC does not teach – and has never taught – that Mary is the Mother of God from eternity – that is to say, of the Trinity itself. She is ‘Mother of God’
only with reference to the ‘Word’ incarnate.
Peace.
